Yesterday, the SCA surprised a lot of people by appointing a long time Republican operative, Edina Rogers, as the Executive Director. Rogers has been involved in the Republican Party as advisor or staffer to several senators and both Presidents Bush. She was the General Council for the Republican National Senatorial Committee in 1994, and has appeared on Fox News representing the White House on several issues including the war in Iraq and energy policy. Despite some efforts to distance Rogers from the Republican policies of the mid 1990s through recent years, there is no doubt that Edwina Rogers has been part of that process and on board with those policies.

Having said that, Rogers has worked in recent years, as a lobbyist, on projects that would not be expected to be part of the primary Republican agenda. She is a secularist and has shown evidence of having favored some policies that would be in alignment with some of the groups represented by the SCA. Here is the video produced by the SCA in which Rogers introduces herself to her new constituents:

The Secular Coalition of America represents organizations that by any standard are liberal or progressive in the main. That this is true is an unavoidable conclusion. The Right Wing and the Republican Party that represents it in Washington and elsewhere is explicitly in favor of breaking down the barrier between church and state, is explicitly anti women and thus anti-humanist, and is the most anti-science social institution that has existed in the West since the days of Galileo. The representatives of the right wing have venues they use regularly which are devoid of other voices, such as Fox News. Rogers has been part of that Right Wing, making policy, and speaking on its behalf in those venues for 20 years. Therefore, it is astonishing that anyone would ever consider her to be a good choice to head the umbrella organization.

On the other hand, Rogers states explicitly and repeatedly in the video introduction that she will lobby for legislation that is explicitly science based and not religion based. Elsewhere she has noted that Republicans are just as secular as Democrats, as a subset of society. This is actually probably true. I spend a fair amount of time hanging around with Democrats, in explicit Party political contexts, and as a group they are annoyingly not-atheistic. I imagine that as a group, both Democrats and Republicans are generally religious, just as Americans generally are. The difference, though, is that Democrats are explicitly pro separation of church and state, and Republicans are explicitly against it.

Rogers has suggested and a small number of others seem to agree that she can implement a policy of reaching across the aisle and making things happen. This is a great strategy that could be very useful, but I’m afraid that there may be one component needed that will be hard to come by: A Tardis or some other form of time machine. There was a time in the past when bi-partisan activities occurred, bi-partisan bills were passed, and in some cases, it there was even overlap in policy positions between the two major parties. Due to the Republican “one party” strategy initiated about the time Rogers was with the RNSC in the 1990s, recently advanced even further by the Tea Party philosophy that elected officials only represent those who voted for them, “reaching across the aisle” is no longer an option. It is very likely that the best Rogers will be able to do is to not get thrown out of as many representatives offices as she might otherwise. I am very doubtful that her lobbying efforts will cause any Right Wingers to go along with a secular movement in Congress.

But still, maybe she can do this job. Perhaps the hiring committee (which as far as I know is anonymous) at the SCA has made a brilliant move here. Perhaps Rogers will do well. I’m enough of a political realist to know that people’s surficial position and what they really think are not ever identical in Washington or in any State House. Rogers is a professional lobbyist, and she seems to have convinced an anonymous committee of presumably smart people that this will work. It does worry me a bit that the sorts of people who rise in the Humanist and Secular movements have a better than average chance of being politically naive. The idea of a “hands across the aisle” strategy working in 2012 suggests that this is the case. If Rogers is a good lobbyist and the anonymous committee of the SCA is not as politically savvy as they might be, perhaps Rogers just landed herself a nice job in DC to tide her over between important things. So yes, I’m saying that on one hand it is quite possible that the SCA has made a brilliant move, and on the other hand, it is quite possible that they’ve been had.

The proof will be in the pudding. However, I do not advocate the position of assuming that Rogers is sincere, at true secularist, and not a fox guarding the hen house. I can’t make those assumptions and I suggest other do not as well for one simple reason. The Right Wing, and the Republican Party that represents them have declared a war on Women, a war on Secularism, a war on gays, and a war on Science. Rogers was part of that political movement. In my mind, the evidence at hand requires that she not start out her new job in a position of trust. She will have to earn that trust with transparent action, stating and maintaining clear and transparent goals, and by getting results.

I have not heard any official word from the SCA itself on what they are up to. A phone meeting initiated between me and one of their representatives never developed happened Friday afternoon, and I’ll be writing something up a bit later pursuant to that. My understanding is that even people in key positions in the organizations the SCA represents did not know she had been hired until minutes before it was generally announced.

Later in May, several extraordinary women will be speaking at the Women in Secularism conference. Edwina Rogers was added to that program, apparently, a few moments after her appointment was made known. To me, that conference is going to be a key moment. A representative of the Bush Administration and the Right Wing Republican Party speaking in that lineup … and speaking in that lobby and at those breakfast and lunch tables and over those beers and martinis… Will the women of that conference leave the event with a trust, even an admiration, for Edwina Rogers? If so, then I’ll support her too, because many of those women are trusted friends or colleagues.

To all the people going to the Women in Secularism Conference: I recommend that you order the pudding for dessert.

Elsewhere on Freethoughtblogs:
Attempting the Impossible?
Controversy comes with the new Secular Coalition for America Executive Director
I won’t comment
A Republican to Head the Secular Coalition for America?
Who is going to be our spokesperson on Capitol Hill?
Despicable Right-Wing Political Hack New Director of the Secular Coalition for America
Secular Coalition For… The Right Wing GOP?
Edwina Rogers vs. Michael J. Fox

Which is funny, because he might have just Godwined his own tax return.

Americans United is calling for an IRS investigation of the Peoria Catholic Diocese after Biship Jenky gave a homily in mass at St. Mary’s Cathedral in which he said:

Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care. In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.

Well, it’s nice to know a) Hitler and Stalin had better moments (I did not know that) and b) American United attends churches looking out for this sort of violation.

The AU complaint states:

“Bishop Jenky compared Obama to Hitler and Stalin and accused him of pursuing policies that will close Catholic institutions. Moments later, he exhorted members of his flock not to vote for candidates who fail to uphold Catholic values. It is impossible to interpret this as anything but a command to vote against Obama.”

The full press release from American United is here.

Carroll County commissioners have asked county employees to attend a seminar on the Maryland Constitution led by a conservative Christian minister, sparking accusations that local officials are overstepping the boundary between church and state.

The minister in question is David Whitney, who is one of those guys who thinks he can reconcile American Law with the Bible, by making American Law like the Bible.

“We will be looking at the language of our founding fathers who wrote they were ‘grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberties’ front and center on this document. The Bible is the source of the authority that they looked to.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United are annoyed with the $800 of government money funding the operation. Rob Boston, of Americans United asks, “Do these commissioners realize what a mess they have stepped into? This is a toxic stew, and employees should not be forced to dine there.”

Indeed.

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

would become

No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.

There is a summary at Americans United

President Barack Obama will announce a plan to accommodate religious employers outraged by a rule that would require them to cover birth control for women free of charge, according to a person familiar with the decision.

Obama was expected to make the announcement at the White House Friday.

This could work out, because I can easily imagine a law suit by an employee who does not get the same coverage as some other employee in some similar job elsewhere, as well as a law suit from, say, a school board member insisting that teachers/staff in their school NOT be covered. Since the 1st amendment is mainly to protect individuals and not institutions, this absurd patchwork of regulations would be reversed.

Right?

District officials, administrators, teachers, staff and other employees are no longer allowed to initiate or solicit prayers or join in with students during such activities, or to encourage others to engage in such religious activities.

“This settlement brings an end to several practices we believed were unconstitutional and that violated students’ rights,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “I’m glad we were able to resolve this matter out of court.”

Also under the settlement:

* School district personnel will not display crosses, religious images, religious quotations, Bibles or religious texts, or other religious icons or artifacts on the walls, hallways, and other areas at the school.

* The district will not invite speakers, including government officials or community leaders, whom it has reason to believe will proselytize or promote religion during their remarks.

* The Medina Valley High School student handbook will contain a section on students’ rights to religious freedom, including the importance of respect for and tolerance of students from all backgrounds and the specific procedures for registering a complaint with district personnel about violations.

* The district will provide annual training to all district personnel who interact with students or parents or who supervise those who interact with students or parents. The training will cover a variety of topics related to students’ rights and church-state separation.

AU Senior Litigation Counsel Gregory M. Lipper, who served as lead plaintiffs’ counsel, praised the Schultz family for coming forward and challenging the school district’s promotion of religion.

“The Schultz family displayed great courage in standing up for religious liberty and church-state separation in the face of intense community opposition,” Lipper said. “The significant changes in the Medina Valley School District could not and would not have happened without their courageous efforts.”

From the AU

Then, Republican Cliff Stearns, a Congressional representative from Florida, launched an inquirey against Planned Parenthood. This investigation is widely regarded as a senseless political move, a mean spirited attack on women and women’s health, and a bunch of crap.

Apparently, and the details are largely secret at this time, various Right Wing Christian forces went to work to pressure Koman into dropping its funding for Planned Parenthood, and Komen dutifully caved. They either made up or pulled out of their non-profit asses a rule that said that they can’t fund agencies that are under investigation by local, state, or federal agencies. Then, they interpreted this sham inquirey in Congress as an “investigation by a federal agency” which it is not.

And, thus, under the guise of following their sanctimonious rule, Komen stopped funding help for cancer screening and other breast cancer related services to countless poor and underprivileged women.

What can you do?

• Visit Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page and say something nice.
• Then go to any one of the countless Komen facebook pages (like this one or this one) and let them know what you think. Normally I would say “respectfully” but I think I won’t.

Then, after you’ve made yourself feel all good and like you’ve done something, actually DO SOMETHING:

• Go here and make an emergency donation to Planned Parenthood to make up the shortfall.
• Use the share buttons down below or any other means you’d like to let everyone you know that Komen has jumped the shark and will no longer be regarded as a valid charity by anyone who does not hate women.

What are you sitting there staring at this blog post for? GET MOVING ON THIS! NAO!!!11!!

Many of the details known so far are reported here.

And now, a word from the next president of the United States:

I want my Canadian Passport now, just in case.

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced that it will not intervene in a controversy over sectarian prayer before meetings of the Forsyth County, N.C., Board of Commissioners.

The justices’ action leaves in place an appellate court decision barring the county from regularly opening its meetings with Christian invocations.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, one of the groups sponsoring the lawsuit, said the high court was right not to intervene.

Said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, “When government meetings are opened regularly with Christian prayer, it sends the unmistakable message that non-Christians are second-class citizens in their own community. That’s unconstitutional, and it’s just plain wrong.

“All Americans ought to feel welcome at governmental meetings,” he continued. “The Constitution clearly forbids government to play favorites when it comes to religion.”

The record in the Joyner v. Forsyth County case indicates that 26 of the 33 invocations given from May 29, 2007, until Dec. 15, 2008, contained at least one reference to Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christ, Savior or the Trinity.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Janet Joyner and Constance Lynn Blackmon, two county residents and members of the Winston-Salem Chapter of Americans United. They are being represented by Americans United and the ACLU of North Carolina.

On July 29, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the county’s prayer practice is unconstitutional.

“Faith is as deeply important as it is deeply personal,” wrote Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, “and the government should not appear to suggest that some faiths have it wrong and others got it right.”

Americans United Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan said the appeals court came to the correct conclusion.

“America is extremely diverse when it comes to religious opinion and government must respect that diversity,” Khan said. “Government preference for one faith over others is a recipe for social discord.”

I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.